“Evolutionary Psychology” Is A Load Of Fucking Shit

February 18, 2009

Amanda has a detailed take down of a particular “evolutionary psychology” “study” yesterday that really makes clear that the motivation for this crapola is apologetics for misogyny. Here broader point–other than the specific takedown–is as follows:

[T]hese are troubling indicators that armchair evo psych “theories” about how women are biologically inferior to men have become so ingrained in our consciousness, that half-baked pseudo-science evolutionary just-so stories don’t have to be made up at all. Gender essentialist stories are now written, and the audience is free to assume that the measured trends are DNA-based and have no relationship to social conditioning at all.

As someone whose career is based on the reality of biological evolution, this “evo psych” arrant bullshit really pisses me the fuck off! There is absolutely no fucking way that we could possibly distinguish the relative contributions of genetics and environment–including social environment–to complex social/psychological behaviors like human relationships even if that distinction were itself coherent. The entire fucking fake-ass “discipline” is scientifically bankrupt, and populated solely by loser-ass “nice guy” motherfuckers who hate women because they can’t get laid.

52 Responses to ““Evolutionary Psychology” Is A Load Of Fucking Shit”

I think your opposition is a just a bit hyperbolic. I think it is definitely true that the vast majority of evo-psych is complete bullshit. On the other hand, I don’t think it’s correct that there’s “absolutely no fucking way” we can ever puzzle out the contributions of genetics to psychology (which may well turn out to be nearly zero). It seems an extraordinarily difficult endeavor, but not inherently impossible.

Of course, such a complicated task is not at all helped by incompetents and nincompoops who appear to have gained their understanding of the scientific method from the side of a cereal box.

Barefoot Bum,
I think CPP nailed it with “absolutely no fucking way”. Sure, we may learn of a genetic contribution here and a predisposition there, in dribs and drabs relative to the whole picture of genetics as it impacts psychology. But to do so on anything that even approaches a comprehensive scale, I’d have to agree with CPP that there is no fucking way.

What am I missing here? phunxtionalMRI can as easily reflect patterns dictated by experience as by genetic endowment. The data do not support any evo psy claims and cannot do so absent appropriate exp design

It’s interesting that almost all the evo-psych bullshit tends to focus on the differences between males and females, as if we’re completely different with no similarities in behaviour. I guess comparing humans to rats or chimps isn’t useful in the quest to make “nice guys” feel better about themselves.

This evo-psych bullshit has been used to justify all kinds of stupid actions amongst supposedly “educated” people. In a recent lunchtime conversations with two physical scientists, I heard 1) Dude #1 should have 37 kids because he is evolutionarily programmed to, and 2) Dude #2 will only date Asian women because he is evolutionarily programmed to. Blah blah blah.

I am unfamiliar with anything published as a paper on “evolutionary psychology,” and as such, cannot have opinions on the matter, however, what could it possibly provide which is of use which anthropology, genetics, human evolutionary biology, and neurobiology cannot which we need a separate field for?

I think it would be possible to conduct an experiment (although not ethical) to determine to what degree a behavior is socially influenced, but again, that would require bending the ethics of most people (and the laws of most countries) to do so.

There’s been plenty of research proving there are specific parts of the brain that are responsible for “higher level” functions like empathy, trust, love, etc., and lack of development in those brain areas is also evident in certain personality disorders (Narcissism, Sociopaths, etc.).

Unless someone is a Creationist who thinks humans suddenly appeared one day, “fully formed”, then there’s little reason to believe those functions didn’t evolve, along with the rest of the brain. That these are brain functions regulating emotions, then they’re obviously linked to gender as well (i.e. nurturing, etc.). Besides, since the genders are so different physiologically, what’s so offensive about the notion that there are neurological differences too?

If only it were true that the whining, self-pitying “nice guy” types couldn’t get laid; we could then hope their behavior’s lack of success would mean less emulation of it.

Mat Delfave’s statement that “since the genders are so different physiologically, what’s so offensive about the notion that there are neurological differences too” is mind-bogglingly disingenuous, & suggests a cultivated ignorance both of the contemporary world & the history of how science has been used to justify one group of human beings’ exploitation & abuse of another.

Sexes are different physiologically. Gender is about self identification and biologists and psychologists are understanding more and more that this is NOT primarily physiological. There is some evidence that sex (chromosomal, anatomical, physiological) might influence gender to a slight degree, but the evidence is pretty slim. In contrast, the evidence for gender being a product of social and psychological influence is much greater.

Narcissism (NPD) is a pretty well recognized personality disorder, that’s also been linked to specific neurological deficits. But statistically it occurs much more frequently in males (aprox. 75% of the cases are men). On the other hand, Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) is way more common among women. So if male/female brains are the same, then why aren’t their brain disorders the same?

Incidentally, there’s been some interesting research suggesting that “Trolls”, “Flamers”, and other online predators are mostly Narcissists (usually male!). By taking advantage of the web’s anonymity, what they’re mainly seeking online is Narcissitic Supply (i.e. “attention”, negative or otherwise, and “proof” of their grandiose knowledge, intellect, vocabulary, etc.). But though they can be annoying, they can’t help themselves either, since they share the same developmental deficits as the sociopath: poor self-esteem, hostility, paranoia, control issues, absence of empathy, etc.

“But statistically it occurs much more frequently in males (aprox. 75% of the cases are men). On the other hand, Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) is way more common among women. So if male/female brains are the same, then why aren’t their brain disorders the same?”

How much of this is due to reporting bias? Or again, differential response to whatever may trigger these things due to differential societal pressures?

Diagnoses of celiac disease also occur more frequently in men…but this is not because men are more likely to have the disease. It because doctors tend to jump to another conclusion when a woman presents with the same symptoms. How often are young women with celiac disease misdiagnosed with eating disorders because their symptoms fit the stereotype? Young, thin, extreme weight loss, neurotic (you would be too if you were losing lots of weight for no known reason)…the answer is: LOTS! How many women are NOT properly diagnosed with heart disease because we tend to think of this as something as affecting overweight middle-aged men? Again, LOTS! While the numbers may be skewed to one sex or the other, this can be attributed to other factors besides a physiological difference between the sexes.

It is true that diagnoses of some conditions, including psychological/neurological ones, are over-represented in one sex or the other…but with so many examples of this being due to stereotypes biasing diagnoses, I would not try to use this argument to support the idea that the sexes are neurologically different. It just doesn’t hold water in too many other cases for it to convince anyone in this case.

Agreed re: the possibility of cultural biases skewing the stats, and this has been suggested to explain the disparities. Actually I have no preference one way or the other whether sex and/or gender differences are neurologically “hard-wired” or not. But mostly it just seems like there’s way more evidence (scientific, logical, and intuitive) indicating at least partial “hard-wiring”, with little or no real proof from opponents, except disputing the evidence.

Besides, opposition is one thing, but what’s the big deal, that the very concept seems so emotional as well? Or does it violate some sort of “ideology” to even suggest that nature may have programmed us much more than we realize (or would like to think)?

There is absolutely no fucking way that we could possibly distinguish the relative contributions of genetics and environment–including social environment–to complex social/psychological behaviors like human relationships even if that distinction were itself coherent”

is absolutely true. This is not to say that biologists and experimental psychologists aren’t trying to look at these questions…but we’re not getting very far because the possible interactions between genetics, environment, and social conditioning with respect to behavior are soooooo complex. Speaking as a geneticist who has dabbled in behavioral ecology, I can say that it is just impossible to be able to attribute a clear experimental difference (in the very unlikely event that you get such a thing) to one factor or the other.

Then you get these kinds of claims coming out of the evo psych camp, which is not based in ANY kind of experimental inquiry, and they go and say,

“Well look, boy monkeys do X to girl monkeys and vice versa and we’ll just go ahead and say that it’s because of this tenuously imagined evolutionary advantage (which we just made up) that such behavior affords and so people must be hard-wired for the same such behavior.”

And then the oh-so-scientifically-inclined pop press picks it up and touts is as yet another excuse for men to be philanderers and women to be gold-diggers. We can’t help it! We evolved this way! Except that there is exactly zero evidence because evo psych is not founded in the scientific method…instead there’s a bunch of half-baked theories that make their way into pop culture to support pre-existing stereotypes of traditionally oppressed groups.

So the emotional outrage is for two reasons:

1) Evo psych poses as science when it does not practice the scientific method – this makes legitimate scientists look bad and undermines our credibility.

2) Evo psych has a long track record of putting forth scientific-sounding “hypotheses” (which they can’t be bothered to actually test) that by and largely support commonly held societal biases, which then continue to be perpetuated under the guise of “hey it must by true – those evo psych sops say it’s ‘scientific'”. This pisses of scientists as well as anyone else who would like to see people given a little fucking credit for the ability to think for themselves and treat each other as equals rather than objects as if we are incapable of treating each other better than non-human animals.

Don’t be one of those that falls into the trap of pseudo-science. Big words don’t make it science, and even if they did, appealing to sciency-sounding ideas doesn’t make it true.

It seems an extraordinarily difficult endeavor, but not inherently impossible.

Like I said on comments at PZ’s blog once or twice on this topic:

The uncertainty principle from physics is a good analogy for this.

The social component is so large that any signal you might extract for the genetic component is virtually unmeasurable. The only way the social component might be suppressed is by blatantly flouting all norms of ethical treatment of human subjects in scientific experiments.

Perhaps some later species that treats humans the way we treat mice may be able to extract some purely genetic components of human social behavior. Until then, “absolutely no fucking way” about sums it up

Nah, just because something isn’t (currently) measurable doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. But the problem isn’t with the research, it’s with the the conclusions that everybody with an agenda (media, feminists, fundamentalists, politicians, etc.) will interpret from the results.

Right. The evo-psychologists who come to the conclusions that you’re supporting have no agenda at all. I guess you don’t have an agenda either. Just people who you find distasteful or disagree with. Mat = Joke

Mat, there’s absolutely no need to act so butthurt. What everyone’s been trying to say is that Evo-Psych is not science for various reasons (see: all the comments above AND the post). It’s armchair theorizing that most often comes to highly misogynistic conclusions, which are used by misogynistic cumbuckets to justify being assholes to women.

Thanks “marbles”, but I think we caught on to that part (it was the over-use of the word “misogynistic” that probably tipped me off).

The question still stands, so why the hissyfits and personal attacks if anybody even remotely disagrees? Suggestions of NPD, Tourettes and “Fascism” aside, sounds like maybe y’all protest just a little too much…?

I have to ask: Mat, are you an idiot or do you just play one on the internet? The reason we’re throwing “hissyfits” is because that argument is rarely (if ever) brought up in good faith. And even when it is there isn’t much scientific basis for an argument.

FYI: It’s generally not a good idea to tell women in an argument about misogyny that they’re throwing a hissyfit.

Sorry, wasn’t aware I was talking to any women here (let alone ladies).

But if you insist on getting personal about it, I just came here looking for some info. re: neurological research, but quickly realized I’d accidentally stumbled onto a bizarre circle-jerk of self-hating Narcissistic guys, who are likely so “whipped” both at home and at work that cursing & keyboard courage is the only way they can still find their “cajones”. The rest I figured, were just some female BPDs acting as their enablers, albeit with agendas of their own.

That said, if you bothered to read inbetween hyperventilating, I’ve already clearly mentioned that I could care less about the validity of evo-psych one way or the other, although there does seem to be more evidence supporting it than not. And so far, despite all the ill-mannered histrionics here, the “not” side hasn’t shown a wit of scientific data to support their side, only their ideology, attacks, and the typical Narcissist’s “magical thinking” (oh, plus alot of acting out & frustrated rage).

So there you have it “boys” and, um, “girls”, and if I’ve displeased you, well, “whatever”, since your obviously “satisfied” lives (sexually & otherwise) are no doubt used to disappointment by now anyway. In fact, picking fights with total strangers on the internet only proves just how desperate you’ve become for a little attention, ANY attention!

Now if you’ll excuse me please, there are some (real) women I need to go “misogynize”….

I wish people accusing others of not having them would learn that the word is is “cojones” (balls) not “cajones” (drawers, large boxes). And Mat has just flagged his agenda with the term “whipped at home.”

“I could care less about the validity of evo-psych one way or the other, although there does seem to be more evidence supporting it than not.”

Goddamn. Y’all have no idea how difficult it’s been for me to stay out of this shitstorm.

Mat, evo psych is flawed statistically and theoretically. It’s not about the sexism of it. You cannot experimentally manipulate evolutionary forces to determine the affects they have on human behavior, nor can you have a control group.

Because we don’t have time travel, we also do not have the ability to say “this is what life was like when we were cavepeople.” We can speculate, but we cannot use the scientific method to investigate the validity of the claims made by evo psych. I say this to you as a psychologist and a researcher, not as a woman, and as someone who has studied evo psych for about 8 years now.

Other issues with evo psych include the channeling of funding toward a field that is considered “sexy” when the science behind it is flawed, and the fact that its “sexiness” causes the media to pick up on every single study published, ignore the statistics and science, and publish it to the masses as though it were fact. This can be highly damaging, because most people do not know anything about the scientific method and get all of their info from major news outlets. It is never a good thing to have an uneducated population running around claiming biological differences between one group of people and another, especially when there is absolutely no scientific basis for that claim.

I don’t know what your field is, Mat, or to what extent you have been trained in scientific research, but if you read the evo psych journal articles, ignoring the emotions behind the conclusions and focusing on the methods employed and the results obtained, you will see that there are serious flaws. If you don’t have access to these articles and would like me to send you some pdfs, let me know.

Yep…evo psych is pseudoscientific crap. Most social psychology is crap too, based on correlations that they only see because they had hundreds of participants. Don’t even get me started on fMRI/ERP/etc. studies. Ooh, look, this area “lights up”. And…? The main problem with these sub-disciplines is that they have a penchant for making conclusions that are completely inappropriate based on the limitations of their methodology. Then the scientific-knowledge-impaired media picks it up and it’s game over.

I know it makes me an elitist within my discipline, but I don’t care. It also makes me grumpy because those of us doing actual science generally aren’t going to wind up in the New York Times.

Whoa, hold your horses there, CogPsy. Social NEUROSCIENCE is a load of crap, not social psychology.

You manipulate cognitive tasks and measure results. I manipulate social situations and measure results. Both fields are empirical and use the scientific method to the fullest ability. fMRI/ERP studies don’t even factor into my research or the research of most social psychologists.

Aw, that’s unfair and stupid. There is a huge literature of rigorous theory and an empirical comparative database for other animals; it’s called behavioral ecology.

The social component is so large that any signal you might extract for the genetic component is virtually unmeasurable.

That is an assertion with no more or less support than the opposing view that the genetic component is so large that etc.

The evo-psychologists who come to the conclusions that you’re supporting have no agenda at all.

Of all the anti-evo-psych tropes that recur inevitably in these discussions, I find the claim that the core motivation (“agenda”) for evolutionary psychologists is to shore up the patriarchial status quo to be the dumbest. Right or wrong, these people are trying to figure out some of the biological bases underlying human behavior. That’s it; that’s the agenda in toto. I do not refer to popularizers and journalists. of course.

evo psych is flawed statistically and theoretically

It can be; I agree that much of it is. It doesn’t have to be, though.

It’s not about the sexism of it.</blockquote.
From my experience reading internet discussions of the subject (and occasionally stirring the pot), it’s my impression that, for the majority of evo-psych’s lay critics it is indeed about the (perceived) sexiam of it.

You cannot experimentally manipulate evolutionary forces to determine the affects they have on human behavior, nor can you have a control group.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that controlled experiments are the only way to do valid science.

“You seem to be under the misapprehension that controlled experiments are the only way to do valid science.”

Okay, Sven, I’ll bite.

Explain to me how one would go about showing a CAUSAL relationship in evolutionary psychology (or any other discipline for that matter) without using controlled scientific experiments.

Because they can say that men react more strongly to infidelity because of paternity concerns from prehistoric times, but how does one go about demonstrating that scientifically in a way that goes beyond speculation?

It’s like saying you believe in god because no one can prove that he doesn’t exist.

Nice response to Sven, JLK. Be careful though. I think it’s going a bit far to say that because you don’t do a controlled experiment you aren’t doing science at all…it just means you can’t make causal conclusions. Other types of research (observation, correlation, surveys, etc.) use the scientific method too, and in many cases, a controlled experiment simply isn’t possible. That’s why evo psych is an epic failure, because they don’t even bother to follow the basic tenets of science. Unfortunately most people think SCIENCE = PROOF = FINAL, and therein lies the problem.

I misspoke (er, mistyped?) on the social psychology thing. Social neuroscience is totally bogus. Then again, I don’t really find most fMRI/ERP studies very satisfying. My rule of thumb is that you shouldn’t run any experiment in a scanner or with an ERP cap that you wouldn’t run on its own merits. Unfortunately, a lot of folks break this rule…repeatedly. (*headdesk*)

Most social psychology is quite good (I like the social cognition stuff in particular, of course), though when you start looking at questions of gender, race, etc., even in the laboratory experiments you start running into limitations because of the inability to cleanly manipulate such factors.

I think you will also agree that in general, effect sizes in social psych are fairly small…thus requiring a ton of subjects. This can lead to some difficulties because of the the limitations associated with null hypothesis testing. You know, the old “keep running subjects until the result comes out as statistically significant” attitude. Again, it’s not necessarily a problem with the science itself so much as inappropriate conclusions. Just because p=.05 doesn’t automatically make a result meaningful.

Thanks, CogPsy. I think you and I are in complete agreement about Evol Psych. I have no problem with correlational study designs to investigate theories and to further research those theories. But the basis of the field is causal relationships that cannot be proven scientifically. And (not to bring up a whole other discussion, but) there is also the question of the value of that line of research. If you, as a CogPsychologist discover new ways that the human mind can remember material more easily, that has value. If I, as a social psychologist, discover that how evidence is presented at a trial impacts jury decisions, that has value. But what value is there to society to “learn” that women get turned on by men with big bank accounts?

I’ve posted over at my own blog about fMRI studies if you’re interested. Caution – it contains the level of snark that CPP is known for:

In terms of social psych and effect sizes, you are right for the most part. I’ve asserted again and again over at my blog that the greatest findings in social psychology have been from the most unethical studies ever designed. We are limited (albeit for the right reasons) as to what we can discover about social influences on human behavior. It’s kind of like how cognitive psychologists could discover TONS of things about the human brain if you had the ability to “lop off” certain portions of it or use single-neuron recordings in humans. The Cogs are faced with the same dilemmas as the Socs.

There is so much overlap between what you do and what I do. Social cognition is just one obvious example. Evol psych, on the other hand, is claiming to be the “metapsychology” of human behavior, being the end-all be-all of what you and I are trying to study. It is 100% determinist which, I think, is the antithesis of what you and I are trying to accomplish in our respective fields.

Do you have a blog? Because I think you and I should get together on Teh Intertubes. ;)

[…] hit: Evo psych Posted on February 24, 2009 by volcanista I missed PhysioProf’s post the other day about how evo psych is complete crap. But I am of the opinion that evo psych is complete and utter crap, so I love his […]

Hey, man, I went to grad school in the humanities and we did better than that. I seem to remember, somewhere in the terror and pneumonia-induced fog of grad school, taking a research methodology course in there somewhere, with statistics in it, even.

And unless you’re a working literary theorist, in which case you need to be pensioned off for mental disability, the humanities don’t actually go around making up Just So stories about the human mind. Literary theorists are to literature as EvoPsych is to psychology.

(Literary theorists have a lot of Just So stories. Studying literary theory is where I got my amazing ability to detect whether someone’s talking rot or not. Discourse analytics probably didn’t hurt, either…)

Then again, I went to the University of Rigorloo, so that might have somethin’ to do with it…

[…] “Evolutionary Psychology” Is A Load Of Fucking Shit « Comrade PhysioProf "As someone whose career is based on the reality of biological evolution, this 'evo psych' arrant bullshit really pisses me the fuck off! There is absolutely no fucking way that we could possibly distinguish the relative contributions of genetics and environment–including social environment–to complex social/psychological behaviors like human relationships even if that distinction were itself coherent. The entire fucking fake-ass 'discipline' is scientifically bankrupt, and populated solely by loser-ass 'nice guy' motherfuckers who hate women because they can’t get laid." (tags: bullshit misogyny assholes sexism feminism) […]

Thanks for posting this. I just got into an argument about misogynistic Evo Psych the other day, and my counterarguments ended up getting devalued less because I’m a girl than being one who’s trans. It was extremely frustrating, which makes this post all the more satisfying.

I don’t know anything about about evo psych, and don’t really care. But the majority of the people arguing against it on here are an embarrassment to intelligent discussion. Namely if you use the words “butt hurt” as a rebuttal, you should probably wait until you’re older to have these kinds of talks.

[…] like, “Is evolutionary psychology total utter and dangerous bullshit?” or, “Evolutionary Psychology is a load of fucking shit” all without actually discussing the underpinnings of the field (which is really a shame, as […]

Evoultionary Psychology has as many morons in it as other NEW disciplines but it is based on science of biology and anatomy. I agree Social Psychology is completely mad, but EvoPsych rarely ever mentions differences between male and female and presents evidence not makes conclusions. Its interesting specualtively, not entirely useful but hey neither is theoretical physcis but they are both fun

It’s not just nerdy STEM guys who “can’t get laid” that support evo-psych, it’s our entire fucking society. Traditionalists of all genders and identities love buying into this shit because it reinforces their worldview.

I’m a shy STEM guy, but I’m also a feminist, and it really pisses me off when feminists resort to virgin/introvert-shaming. I get enough of that from society without having to see it all the fucking time on feminist blogs.

Plus, you just let everyone else off the hook. My brother is an outgoing military guy who gets laid ALL the time (he’s outgoing), and he’s also one of the biggest misogynists I know. He’s the type who self-labels as an “alpha male” and evidently it works pretty well on traditionalist women. I love the guy, but he’s definitely a misogynist.

I’m sorry sschmiggles that certain feminists, who should know better, resort to those nasty shaming tactics as if one’s worth is determined by how frequently they have sex. A person lives a sad life if losing their virginity is the biggest accomplishment they can come up with. It’s disgusting to mock ‘shy STEM guys’, when like us, they don’t want to feel forced into a gender role because “real men aren’t introverted and nerdy”. These guys just want to feel accepted for who they are and not be stereotyped as angry woman-hating virgins. Please ladies, remember this the next time you try to insult someone by dismissing them as ‘frustrated virgin nerds, ew’.

Most psychologists I’ve met tend to see EvoPsyc on par with a lot of things Freud ass-pulled and spewed out of his mouth (not saying Freud was wrong about everything he said, here). Both psychologists and evolutionary biologists tend to see it as an assault on their disciplines, with good reason. As a neurobiologist, I get frustrated when people make false claims such as: Men and women have slightly different brain sizes and make-up, therefore this makes them inherently different because “evolutionary psychology says so”. How about neurobiology, which says that isn’t the case? Repeatedly?

But if it supports misogyny and racism most people in society eat it up, especially right-wingers, the KKK, would-be rapists, and wife beaters.

One more thing. The problem with EvoPsyc is that it speculates what humans were like in the ‘caveman’ days when we have next to know evidence supporting any such speculation. Evolutionary psychologists also have a tendency to mold data so that it fits with the hypothesis instead of vice versa. This is offensive and violates the scientific method. Most, if not all, EvoPsyc ‘theories’ cannot be falsifiable because of the massive speculation needed to validate hypotheses. This means that we cannot prove or disprove EvoPsyc theories using experimentation and observation. This is a huge problem because now you can use EvoPsyc logic to justify all kinds of abhorrent behavior.

It’s also worrisome because as noted above, most people not trained as scientists aren’t able to tell the difference between valid research and pseudoscience. This leads to them taking everything at face value. I once had a friend who honestly believed that an increase in cell phone usage was a good way to combat smoking because some article posted in the news found a correlation somewhere. I can’t blame them when society is constantly lead to believe that science = infallible while forgetting that scientists are people too.